Debates of May 4th, 1999

1999 Budget Implementation Act

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased, as a member of the Bloc Quebecois, to speak on Bill C-71 and more specifically on Motion No. 1 introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

The budget is always an important issue, though it may be dry. But it is very important, in particular for Quebecers who give the federal government $30 billion in taxes every year, without being sure of reap all the due benefits from this annual collective effort, which is a huge effort on the part of Quebecers.

It cannot be said that the federal government is greatly involved in Quebecers' everyday lives. However, if there is one area where it does get involved, it is employment insurance.

What the federal government in recent years has been appalling, not to say dramatic, for thousands and thousands of Quebecers and Canadians. In 1990, about 90% of those who contributed to employment insurance were eligible for benefits when they had the misfortune—because it is a misfortune, something those on the other side and specifically the Minister of the Human Resources Development tend to forget—to lose their job.

We should be there as a community and as a government to support those individuals who have to go through such dire straits. In 1990, about 90% of those who contributed to insurance employment had the good fortune or privilege to receive benefits. Then the Conservatives began to fiddle with employment insurance, and the Liberals merrily carried on. Yet, the members opposite, who were then in the opposition, had condemned this. In spite of that—and this is typical—the government is still fiddling and only 36% of those who contribute to employment insurance are now eligible for benefits.

This, as we know, allowed the government to eliminate the deficit at the expense of low income taxpayers, low income earners and the most vulnerable people. The government took care to protect the interests of the wealthy. It has always found a way to justify the existence of tax shelters and, most of all, tax havens.

Since the Liberals took office, there has been one scandal here, in Ottawa, in the Conservative-Liberal tradition. I am talking about the family trust scandal that allowed a well known family to avoid paying somewhere between $400 and $700 million in federal taxes. These are not mere details. This happened in spite of the fact that the government and particularly the Department of Finance were fully aware of what was going on and in spite of the fact that the Auditor General of Canada expressed his disagreement before being put in his place by the accounting gurus, in particular those who develop tax schemes in Toronto. The auditor general—and I witnessed it personally—was simply told to mind his own business by these thinkers from Toronto who protect the interests of the rich in Canada and who develop these tax schemes to help them.

This budget has also created a precedent in Canadian history in that the rules of the game have been changed with regard to federal transfers to the provinces.

The government has decided that, from now on, these transfers will be made on a per capita basis according to the population of each province instead of being based on the needs of each province. It is a fundamental change and the results are brilliant. This means that, over the next five years, Ontario will get 47% of these transfers, whereas Quebec will get 8%. With this kind of management, it is no wonder Quebecers want out. It is one reason among many.

On of the reasons Quebecers want out and will be increasingly eager to get out—and this budget is part of that Canadian process—is the social union framework agreement, which is a major event in Canadian history, even though its name does not appear to mean much.

The term social union is a rather insignificant one, one that does not generate much discussion, but does imply an enormous impact on the new Canada of tomorrow, the new Canada of the year 2000 and beyond, the new Canada built here in Ottawa, which will be centralized and unitary. The provinces have recently given the federal government legal authorization to intervene in areas in which they have sole jurisdiction: health, education and social programs. These, according to the 1867 constitution, which we respect, were the exclusive jurisdiction—important words—of the provinces.

With that recent consent by the provinces, the federal government has been given authorization to get involved in these areas in order to turn this country in the future into a centralized and unitary country, one in which decisions will be made—efficiently, let us hope—so that it can have a competitive edge internationally, where it has been rather lagging behind until now.

This new Canada is looking for ways to be competitive, but everyone will pay a price as far as structure is concerned. This means that, slowly but surely, the provincial governments will find themselves turning into regional governments, with considerably diminished powers.

This means that Quebec is not only a province, but one just like the others. This means that the Quebec people has never been recognized as a distinct entity by the rest of Canada, and never will be. There is no such thing as a Quebec people in the context of a new unitary Canada. Such notions will have no place in the new Canada of tomorrow.

This means that there will be national standards in all sectors in which the federal government has a hand, including education, which was what Jean Charest, former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and now leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, argued for in 1997. There will be national standards to evaluate students and schools from coast to coast.

This is what the Canada of tomorrow will look like, with national standards set by Ottawa applying to all the provinces, which will become regional governments.

In my opinion, Canada has to centralize because of international pressure. Countries dealing with Canada want clearer rules. They want to know if there are disagreements between the provinces and the federal government. The government is in the process of clearing the way, without debate, for the federal government to have a free hand to sign whatever contracts it wishes, particularly international ones, legitimately and with full jurisdiction.

This is a necessity for Canada, but it is a disaster for Quebec.

If Quebecers remain in Canada, they will slowly disappear. It is Louisiana all over again. As the member for Saint-Maurice said, and it was perhaps the only time he showed any vision in his entire career, Quebec would be a larger version of New Brunswick. If Quebec decided to remain within the new structure of the Canada of tomorrow, it would become a larger version of New Brunswick.

All we Quebecers must ask ourselves if this is the kind of Canada in which we want to live, or whether it would not be simpler for Quebec to govern itself the way it wished, and Canada to do the same, and for both parties to enjoy the best possible relations that the good neighbours we have always been can have.

I hope that our fellow Quebecers will give some thought to this very important development in the history of Canada.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The question is on the motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The division on the motion stands deferred until tomorrow afternoon following Government Orders.

The House resumed from April 29 consideration of Bill C-66, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, as reported by the committee (without amendment), and of the motions in Group No. 2.

National Housing Act

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by informing the House that discussions have taken place between all the parties, and I believe that you will find consent for the following motion:

That, during the present debate, all report stage motions on Bill C-66 be deemed moved and seconded and that recorded divisions be deemed requested.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Madam Speaker, last month the government finally recognized the seriousness of the housing crisis.

I think everyone in the House applauds the appointment of the Minister of Labour as the federal co-ordinator on homelessness. Her personal commitment to housing issues is well known and no one doubts that if she was given the tools to do the job she could make a real difference.

This bill is a clear indication that the government does not intend to allow its co-ordinator on homelessness to do more than attend conferences on homelessness. All the way through this bill are provisions that remove direct government involvement in providing housing for those in need.

Instead of parliament or the cabinet making decisions about how to best provide affordable housing, authority has been delegated to an appointed CMHC board of directors. A basic democratic principle is that decisions should be made by elected officials. This bill ignores that principle. Once we have voted to allocate money for housing, the only means this bill gives us for reviewing decisions made on social housing is when the House of Commons receives CMHC's five year corporate plan.

That is why I am a little curious about the wording of the amendment of my Reform Party colleague from Kelowna to remove section 101. This is the only section left in the National Housing Act allowing for the regulation of the CMHC. I have heard the hon. member express concern about the need to make the CMHC more accountable and I hope he will reconsider his motion.

All through this bill are provisions allowing the CMHC to set terms and conditions for programs that provide loans or contributions for housing. If we pass this bill, decisions about how these programs will work will not be made by parliament. They will not even be made by cabinet. Instead, they will be made by an unelected board of directors.

It does not take much of an imagination to picture the response of the government when an unpopular decision is made by the CMHC board. “Oh, that has nothing to do with us,” it will say. “It is all the fault of CMHC”.

When they were in opposition, the Liberals would have found this unacceptable. My colleagues who have been here more years than I have can remember Liberal MPs condemning legislation as undemocratic because it transferred decision making power from parliament to cabinet. Of course, this was when they were in opposition and it was the Conservatives who were introducing the legislation. Today with this legislation they are going even further than the Conservatives could have imagined.

It should also be made clear that the government is not just turning over the power to make decisions about mortgage insurance to CMHC. Under this legislation the government is abandoning its decision making role in almost all parts of the National Housing Act. Whether it is the eligibility criteria for housing renewal programs or setting national standards for public housing, this government is abandoning its responsibilities.

The amendments the NDP will introduce require approval by the governor in council for terms and conditions for housing programs set by CMHC. This does not mean that the cabinet has to approve every last project the CMHC assists. Given this government's record on patronage, there is no way we would suggest that. What it will do, however, is to ensure that the conditions under which projects receive support are approved by the governor in council. This is already happening.

Currently the National Housing Act sets out the terms and conditions for loans, grants and other forms of assistance. The goal of the amendment is to restore the principle that rules about how taxpayers' money is spent should be approved by parliament or by regulations approved by those who are accountable to parliament.

I would also like to touch on some of the specific problems with the bill and what they mean for the federal housing policy now and in the future.

As it stands, the National Housing Act has a number of provisions stating how programs to provide housing should be run. These measures ensure dollars spent on housing do what they are meant to do: help those in need of affordable accommodation find it.

The current restrictions in the National Housing Act seem nothing more than basic common sense. These restrictions include provisions to restrict rent increases for housing projects which have been built or repaired using federal dollars, a reasonable measure if the goal of federal housing programs is to increase the supply of decent, affordable housing.

It includes restrictions saying that only housing projects sponsored by non-profit or co-operative associations qualify for full funding, another measure that seems necessary if the goal of the housing program is to provide affordable housing and not line private developers' pockets.

Under this bill, these provisions are gone. This bill paves the way for the privatization of social housing in Canada. Current statutes contain very clear definitions of what a public housing project is and what an eligible contribution recipient is. These definitions have ensured that funding for housing goes to the groups best able to build and operate affordable housing: non-profit groups and co-operative associations.

This bill eliminates these definitions and others from the National Housing Act and puts them at the discretion of CMHC. This opens the door for private for profit corporations to be recognized as social housing providers. With social housing this can be a very expensive proposition. Building housing units is only part of the cost. The other part of the cost is subsidies for rent.

For non-profit and co-operative housing, all we are subsidizing is the operating and capital costs. If we allow private for profit corporations to provide social housing, we will pay for their profit margin as well as for the cost of the housing. Instead of housing dollars assisting Canadians looking for decent, affordable accommodation, we will be subsidizing for profit developers. In case there is any doubt about this, I would like to touch on what happened in Ontario in the late eighties in cases where private for profit developers received social housing funds. For private developers it was the equivalent of a blank cheque.

Under the Liberal government the subsidy paid for the difference between what the tenant could afford and the market rent for the apartment. The rent review guidelines made it easy for landlords to raise rents and every time the rent went up, so did the subsidy the government was having to pay. In some cases the rents being subsidized in private for profit developments were over $2,000.

In contrast, co-operative and non-profit housing have not seen such dramatic increases in the cost of rent subsidies. There, rent covers the cost of the mortgage and maintenance, not a landlord's profit margin.

The amendments that the NDP has put forward ensure federal funding for housing goes to those with a proven track record: non-profit corporations and co-operatives. In other words these amendments ensure any federal funding for housing goes to where we know it will be used for its intended purpose and where we can keep track of how it is used.

The NDP is also concerned about the elimination of national standards for public housing. In section 78 of the existing National Housing Act, there is a requirement that public housing provide decent, safe and sanitary housing accommodation. Bill C-66 removes this provision. The explanation given was that flexibility is required. There are some things where I do not think we should be flexible. Ensuring that public housing in this country is decent, safe and sanitary is one of them.

It also has been suggested that standards are not required in the section of the National Housing Act dealing with public housing because they are present in the definition of low rental housing project. I am not a lawyer but as far as I know a definition has to be stated to have any effect. Under this bill low rental housing project is defined in section 1 of the National Housing Act but will not appear anywhere else in the legislation.

Like the Minister of Labour in her role as federal co-ordinator on homelessness, the definition sounds good, wants to do something and is not being allowed to do it by this government. What our amendment in Motion No. 16 seeks to do is to restore standards for public housing.

In closing, I emphasize that New Democrats recognize the housing problems in Canada are serious enough that there must be a federal role. We are also concerned about the restrictions the amendments moved by the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve would place on this role. I would hope it is not his intention but the effect of his motions is to give provincial governments ideologically opposed to social housing a veto over the construction of new housing projects. Given the seriousness of the housing crisis we face, this is not something the NDP is prepared to do.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise today and speak to the bill. I have a number of concerns as I am sure many members of the House have about certain provisions in the bill. There are also things that I like about it.

I would like to read into the record words that were spoken by Mr. Laird Hunter, the counsel for the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. I want to do that because in my riding of Delta—South Richmond there are many co-operative housing units. They are a very necessary part of the housing requirements in my constituency for a very simple reason. People in the lower mainland of British Columbia, who in other parts of the country would be making fairly good wages, find they are in a high cost, high rent marketplace. They cannot afford to buy a home and they cannot afford to pay the high rents in some of the accommodation that is available. The alternative has been the co-operative housing marketplace.

As someone who has visited many of those co-operative housing locations, I can assure the House that the housing is simply delightful. It is a pleasure to walk through. Housing co-op members have stated to me on many occasions that they feel very safe in their environment. They know their neighbours and there is stability in the neighbourhood.

The people who participate and live in the co-op housing units have a commitment to the co-op. They ensure that the place is well-maintained because it is their home and it is their investment. They look after one another's children. It is not a concern when their kids are playing in the street in front of a co-op housing unit or in a unit itself. People have some assurance that their kids are safe because they know their neighbours are watching them.

It reminds me of old times in small-town Ontario where I grew up. When we were out playing in the streets our parents were not concerned because they knew the neighbours were looking out for us. Quite often that is something which is missing today. Certainly in busy urban settings that is not the case, but it is the case in these co-op housing units. There is that kind of security. As far as providing homes for people who need them for economic reasons, I do not think there can be a better setting than these co-op houses.

Mr. Hunter noted that the bill contains certain provisions which they are pleased with. He notes and expects that the CHF of Canada welcomes the bill's proposal to strengthen the Canadian system for residential mortgage insurance. He says: “We also support the reinforcement of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's international role both in the exporting market and in helping developing countries to build secure and affordable housing”.

He goes on to say: “We have concerns about Bill C-66. We hope to offer some comments that will help to improve this bill and prevent some of the potential harmful effects that arise through unintended consequences on the affordable housing that now exists”. He outlines the three areas of concern. He said that they have concerns about the mortgage insurance, the international housing matters and the accountability framework. Those are concerns the Reform Party has as well.

One other concern should be mentioned. It is a serious concern for many of the co-ops in my riding. It is an important issue, one which I do not think the bill has addressed at all. It is the problem many of the co-ops have where the mortgages have been locked in. They entered into mortgage agreements in times of high mortgage rates. Unlike others, they cannot simply go to the bank and pay the penalty and buy into lower mortgage rates. They are stuck with the high rates. Some co-ops are paying 10% and 11% mortgage rates, with some probably paying higher rates. They cannot take advantage of the newer lower rates.

That is a fundamental problem. The co-ops are owned collectively. In that sense individuals own their own units, but because the title is a collective title for the whole organization or complex, these people are prevented from going to the bank collectively and saying “We do not want to continue to pay these high rates; we would like to pay the penalty and renegotiate at a lower rate”. That is fundamentally wrong.

We are not dealing with the Rockefellers of the world when we talk about this bill. We are dealing with people who are working hard and trying to put the bread on the table for their families and their children. We are making it tougher for them to do that.

I should mention one other thing when I say that this point is unfair. I was visiting one of the co-ops in my riding within the past year. One of the ladies told me that she had lived in co-op housing for years and that she had paid one of the higher rates. She had a pretty good job and was paying a pretty high rent. Then she had a physical health problem and was unable to work. When she could not work her rent dropped and she paid a little less than she had before. She said that it was not a concern to the other people as they knew she had done her best when she could and now she could enjoy that security. It is only right that happens. The group is looking after its own and that is correct.

Although we in the Reform Party are great supporters of the notion of co-op housing, we believe there is also a place for private sector builders that want to build low cost housing. That is a concern to me and to my friend from Okanagan who is our critic in this area.

I live on the lower mainland where there is a need for lower cost housing. Lower cost housing does not mean lower quality housing. It may mean smaller housing and smaller yards, but it certainly does not mean lower quality.

There is a place for government in providing low cost housing, whether it be through co-ops or assisting private sector builders that want to build low cost housing. The government should be making every effort to ensure that private sector builders have access to land in our municipalities where they can build smaller homes on smaller lots.

When I grew up the home in which I was raised was not very big. It probably was about 1,000 square feet. It was certainly adequate for my parents and four kids. Nowadays it seems that in the area where I live a small home is about 1,200 square feet and many of them are in the 2,000 to 2,500 square foot range.

However, with size comes expense. There is a problem when laws restrict size and do not allow builders to construct smaller homes on smaller lots. It prices people out of the market. The motions the NDP is proposing will do just that. Its series of motions will restrict the value of the bill to providers of on reserve rental housing, non-profit corporations and co-op associations. It does not want to allow private sector builders access to funding. I think that is wrong.

If the federal government is concerned about providing housing to low income Canadians, it should be taking the lead in ensuring that municipalities make land available where smaller lot sizes are okay. It should encourage municipalities to provide areas where smaller homes can be built. There is a place in our society for them. Many of the houses that were built in the thirties, the forties and before were built on smaller lots in many of our cities. They were smaller and affordable.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been extensive consultations among the parties at the House leaders' meeting earlier this afternoon and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, in relation to its examination of tax equity for Canadian families, the eight members of the Subcommittee on Tax Equity for Canadian Families with Dependent Children of the Standing Committee on Finance, be authorized to travel to Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Halifax and Montreal during the period May 10 to May 14, 1999, to hold public hearings and that the necessary staff do accompany the subcommittee.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in that way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

I rise on another point of order. At the same House leaders' meeting there were consultations with respect to the following motion:

That ten (10) members and the necessary staff of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations travel to British Columbia (Vancouver, Lake Williams and Bella Coola) from May 11 to 14, 1999 in order to examine Canadian forest management practices and to hold public hearings with respect to this matter as an international trade issue.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent of the House?